This is no community.

[colinm]

Misguided, unsure whether that was meant to be helpful or friendly.

[GPSGuided]

Misguided, unsure whether that was meant to be helpful or friendly.

It was just to say that it's all just semantics. Just enjoy the forum for what's it worth and not worry about the marketing spins. There are better words to debate on eg. Ultra in UL. All good!

[colinm]

Friendly then. Thanks.

[GPSGuided]

Friendly then. Thanks.

[Nuts]

Colin I'm not sure what has transpired, the site owner apparently going to lengths in response to you cause he seems like a nice bloke?.. that was it as far as i'm aware..

I'm an Anglican (i think it was Cof E last time I attended a church lol) does that make a difference. There has been no collusion between moderators (besides discussing reports etc on their merits), there is no conspiracy, just a group of blokes trying to accommodate the postings of many more (oh... and a few sheilas ), sometimes quirky, sometimes subject to their games. Always at the mercy of their judgement.

The process will never be completely 'fair', can't compare every word edited to what remains. Definitely no conspiracy, coven, whatever... Lol..
Simple rules (administered with varying amounts of time and effort) to try to keep 'most' happy. As are in place in anything resembling a community.

[colinm]

Colin I'm not sure what has transpired, the site owner going to lengths in response to you cause he seems like a nice bloke?.. that was it as far as i'm aware..

I'm sorry, I can't speak much of the specifics, T&C 25 bans that behaviour, so you have an advantage over me in that, since you're not going to be banned for it.

I'm an Anglican (i think it was Cof E last time I attended a church lol) does that make a difference. There has been no collusion between moderators, there is no conspiracy, just a group of blokes trying to accommodate the (sometimes) quirky postings of many more (oh... and a few sheilas ), sometimes subject to their games. Always at the mercy of their judgement.

I presume you're speaking in general terms? I have no insight into that, as the process is not open.

The process will never be completely 'fair', can't compare every word edited to what remains. Definitely no conspiracy, coven, whatever... Lol.. Simple rules (administered with varying amounts of time and effort) to try to keep 'most' happy. As are in place in anything resembling a community.

Nothing simple about them, Nuts. Operative layers of interpretation of which you may not be aware, simply because you have the privilege of being part of the societally dominant value system. I could go off on a rant about what 'kindness' means in a couple of different cultures, to evidence my assertion, but it would bore the mammaries off almost everyone here (male and female.)

[perfectlydark]

As a mod on another forum its not always easy, rules are there for protection of other members although rarely does an instance occur where as a mod you have to act..
not sure what went down but always 2 sides to everystory and I respect your right to voice your opinion to those in charge, that is never a bad thing and usually clears the air

[colinm]

As a mod on another forum its not always easy, rules are there for protection of other members although rarely does an instance occur where as a mod you have to act..

I really will have to insist upon the distinction between "rules" and "terms and conditions." I contend that what are called rules here are actually terms and conditions.

not sure what went down but always 2 sides to everystory and I respect your right to voice your opinion to those in charge, that is never a bad thing and usually clears the air

It might hypothetically clear the air, but T&C 25 exists to ensure a nice covering shroud.

[Strider]

Have you got bored of poking fun at the search for Prahb Srawn, colinm? I am unsure what this is all about but it certainly seems pointless.

[Son of a Beach]

I really will have to insist upon the distinction between "rules" and "terms and conditions." I contend that what are called rules here are actually terms and conditions.

It might hypothetically clear the air, but T&C 25 exists to ensure a nice covering shroud.

I have to disagree. And since I wrote that rule (a very long time ago), I think I can be fairly certain of why it exists. No, the rule does not exist to create a "covering shroud".

(By the way, you can insist as much as you like, but I'll continue to call them "rules" - same as on most other discussion forum sites and the generally accepted term everywhere. For breaching a single "Term" from a contract, you would be subject to litigation and would probably forfeit all your contractual rights. In the case of a web site membership, you would forfeit all access to the site permanently. Alternatively, when you breach a "rule" you may get moderated, or possibly even disciplined, but permanent bans are few and far between on most forum sites. )

The rule in question is this:

Specific moderation actions that have been taken should not be discussed in public forums, but should be taken up with moderators or administrators in private. Discussion of moderation in general is OK, but should be restricted to the "Forum and Site" forum.

It exists because when people don't follow that rule it ends up being a bad experience for everyone, including the complainant, and produces no good outcomes for anybody. In general, such discussions are bad for the community. Here's what happens when people don't follow that rule...

A person (the "complainant") breaches some other forum rule and gets reported to the moderation team and then based on this a moderator takes some action regarding that person's post(s). The complainant then posts details about how unfair/biased/whatever, the moderators actions were. In some cases the complainant's post content may be reasonable and balanced, but in the vast majority of cases they are feeling hard done by and the posts are not only unbalanced but frequently offensive. In most cases such posts have been blatantly incorrect in some aspect or other when it has been done in the past.

Now, the moderator has two choices: 1. Say nothing publicly, and leave the other readers thinking that the moderation team has mis-treated the complainant - this would create a bad feeling amongst the community as a whole thinking that the team running the site are unfair. 2. Reply publicly to explain what action was taken and why so that other readers can see the other side of the story, which in the vast majority of cases is going to make the complainant look bad and get them even more upset - again this would cause a lot of pain - mostly for the complainant.

From this point, whichever of the above two options is taken, things go downhill very fast. Everybody gets upset and much bitterness results.

Basically, the rule is to avoid airing dirty laundry (of both the complainant and of the moderator). It specifically encourages discussion of the rules (without mentioning specific incidents) in order to provide some openness about the intentions of the rules. So thanks for doing that here.

Instead of the above dirty-laundry-airing scenario, moderators aim to discuss moderation issues quietly with the complainant in private, letting them know of what moderation action was taken (or in some cases, not mentioning it at all, if it was something trivial). Moderators will sometimes get involved in a bit of dialogue with complainants but there is a limit to this as it can be VERY stressful at times (from experience) for moderators and sometimes a moderator will need to end the discussion if it looks like it is unlikely to be productive.

Does this give an advantage to the moderators? Yes, it does - if you consider it a battle. For the most part if moderators are doing their job properly, they aim to avoid 'battles' with other members, even those who do need to be moderated. However, some members insist on making it a battle and trying to drag moderators into a fight. I'm so glad I don't have to get involved in that any more!

Should moderators have an advantage? I think they should so long as moderators are fair and reasonable, then having an advantage would be a good thing. I believe that they do aim to be fair and reasonable. Of course some people don't see it that way (and on some rare occasions it has not been that way - but such occasions have been very few in the past).

No moderator is perfect, and the rules are not perfect and cannot suit every situation perfectly. They are designed to be what the the team thinks is best for the community (NOT for themselves) in the majority of cases.

Of course members can always take up a moderation issue with another moderator if you're not happy with a decision. I can assure you than moderator have themselves been moderated in the past in relation to (a very small number) of issues where their behaviour was not suitable. They will aim to be fair and consider the situation objectively.

[Son of a Beach]

PS. Note that I have no current association with moderation on this site. I'm just speaking from past experience. Anything I said may or may not be relevant to how things operate these days. I just get the impression that they are actually doing a great job in difficult circumstances (simply being a moderator on a discussion forum qualifies as "difficult circumstances" in my opinion).

[Stibb]

I am unsure what this is all about but it certainly seems pointless.

FWIW I can clearly see what this is about but I think Strider is right about it being pointless (unfortunately if I may add) because you're banging your head against the wall. This is more than a forum issue, imo it is a festering and sprawling social problem.

[colinm]

I really will have to insist upon the distinction between "rules" and "terms and conditions." I contend that what are called rules here are actually terms and conditions.

It might hypothetically clear the air, but T&C 25 exists to ensure a nice covering shroud.

I have to disagree. And since I wrote that rule (a very long time ago), I think I can be fairly certain of why it exists. No, the rule does not exist to create a "covering shroud".

I don't know why it was created, and make no claim as to why it was created, merely why it exists.

(By the way, you can insist as much as you like, but I'll continue to call them "rules" - same as on most other discussion forum sites and the generally accepted term everywhere. For breaching a single "Term" from a contract, you would be subject to litigation and would probably forfeit all your contractual rights. In the case of a web site membership, you would forfeit all access to the site permanently. Alternatively, when you breach a "rule" you may get moderated, or possibly even disciplined, but permanent bans are few and far between on most forum sites. )

You can call them "little balls of chocolatey goodness" if you like, but they don't actually taste like chocolate, and they're not actually rules. They are as I have described them, for the reasons I have given.

Now we're off into lala land ... For breaching a single "Term" from a contract, you would be subject to litigation and would probably forfeit all your contractual rights. ORLY? So what you're telling me is that the Terms and Conditions of Service here are not even a contract? Ok. I guess that's so. The rest of this paragraph, the bits about litigation, they make no sense in abstract.

The rule in question is this:

Specific moderation actions that have been taken should not be discussed in public forums, but should be taken up with moderators or administrators in private. Discussion of moderation in general is OK, but should be restricted to the "Forum and Site" forum.

It exists because when people don't follow that rule it ends up being a bad experience for everyone, including the complainant, and produces no good outcomes for anybody. In general, such discussions are bad for the community. Here's what happens when people don't follow that rule...

You're speaking hypothetically, or about this site in particular, and experiences you have personally had with this site in particular, or just generally, or about sites you have known, or ... just shooting the breeze? It sounds like it's supposed to be evidence, but that it's really anecdote. I'm at a loss.

A person (the "complainant") breaches some other forum rule and gets reported to the moderation team and then based on this a moderator takes some action regarding that person's post(s).

You mean the complainant or the complainand? The person against whom some moderation action was performed, or the person whose complaint lead to moderation action?

The complainant then posts details about how unfair/biased/whatever, the moderators actions were. In some cases the complainant's post content may be reasonable and balanced, but in the vast majority of cases they are feeling hard done by and the posts are not only unbalanced but frequently offensive. In most cases such posts have been blatantly incorrect in some aspect or other when it has been done in the past.

So, is what you're saying that you get lots of public complaints about moderation *here* on this site? And it follows the trajectory you're describing?

Now, the moderator has two choices: 1. Say nothing publicly, and leave the other readers thinking that the moderation team has mis-treated the complainant - this would create a bad feeling amongst the community as a whole thinking that the team running the site are unfair. 2. Reply publicly to explain what action was taken and why so that other readers can see the other side of the story, which in the vast majority of cases is going to make the complainant look bad and get them even more upset - again this would cause a lot of pain - mostly for the complainant.

I get that it's important to you that people using this site not think that the team running this site are unfair. I think there are worse things.

From this point, whichever of the above two options is taken, things go downhill very fast. Everybody gets upset and much bitterness results.

Oh no. Not me. I am bitter because your terms and conditions of service are misleading, ethnocentric, and *completely* subject to the whims and prejudices in interpretation of completely unaccountable individuals, are conducted behind a shroud of secrecy, and pretty much don't represent the values of any group of people I can identify which is larger than the owners of the site.

Basically, the rule is to avoid airing dirty laundry (of both the complainant and of the moderator). It specifically encourages discussion of the rules (without mentioning specific incidents) in order to provide some openness about the intentions of the rules. So thanks for doing that here.

I think it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about rules in general. Hypothetical discussions are quite pointless. I make up a bunch of stuff, you make up a bunch of stuff, and we resolve to avoid the fantasies of the guy with the wildest imagination?

Instead of the above dirty-laundry-airing scenario, moderators aim to discuss moderation issues quietly with the complainant in private, letting them know of what moderation action was taken (or in some cases, not mentioning it at all, if it was something trivial). Moderators will sometimes get involved in a bit of dialogue with complainants but there is a limit to this as it can be VERY stressful at times (from experience) for moderators and sometimes a moderator will need to end the discussion if it looks like it is unlikely to be productive.

Does this give an advantage to the moderators? Yes, it does - if you consider it a battle. For the most part if moderators are doing their job properly, they aim to avoid 'battles' with other members, even those who do need to be moderated. However, some members insist on making it a battle and trying to drag moderators into a fight. I'm so glad I don't have to get involved in that any more!

Advantages need not accrue only in battle, of course. Competition, perhaps. Say, a competition between different views of the appropriate cultural norms to apply, the appropriate interpretation to place on the terms of service, etc. One would hope that the advantage was to the point of view which represented the community. As the community is only the owners and their moderators, it may even be as you portray, advantageous.

However, if there is a community here, most people aren't part of it.

Should moderators have an advantage? I think they should so long as moderators are fair and reasonable, then having an advantage would be a good thing. I believe that they do aim to be fair and reasonable. Of course some people don't see it that way (and on some rare occasions it has not been that way - but such occasions have been very few in the past). No moderator is perfect, and the rules are not perfect and cannot suit every situation perfectly. They are designed to be what the the team thinks is best for the community (NOT for themselves) in the majority of cases.

"The team" ... thinks is best for the community. Yes. With the single proviso that the team *is* the community. There is no other.

Of course members can always take up a moderation issue with another moderator if you're not happy with a decision. I can assure you than moderator have themselves been moderated in the past in relation to (a very small number) of issues where their behaviour was not suitable. They will aim to be fair and consider the situation objectively.

You know, I can't possibly rebut this without falling foul of T&C #25. Advantage "the team." Yay team.

[colinm]

Have you got bored of poking fun at the search for Prahb Srawn, colinm? I am unsure what this is all about but it certainly seems pointless.

Strider, with every intent to be helpful, and in the spirit of your own "Seeya Later" and Corvus' later "*&%$#! off if you don't like it", and with the same Smiles and friendly facade, I would like to describe to you what steps you might take, when presented with a thread which seems to you pointless, to protect yourself from its pointlessness, and the harm that reading pointless material undoubtedly gives rise to:

If I were to find a thread pointless, I would not read it.

Seems simple, on the face of it, yet so many people find it so difficult. Perhaps you could write it down somewhere.

[Son of a Beach]

You appear to be very bitter and have a very different view of reality to me, so I can't see anything useful coming from my continuing this discussion. However, I'm very sorry that you feel hard done by.

[corvus]

colinm,
With all due respect I think your response to being moderated was a tad sensitive and to come out with all guns blazing an over reaction from you however I guess that is life and I was being harsh telling you to go away in the strident vernacular I used ,as a wise man once said "it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye " so perhaps we all need a big group hug.
corvus

[andrewbish]

If I were to find a thread pointless, I would not read it.

The above is surely the most useful and constructive comment in this entire thread.

I'm off to re-read Wayno's link about testicle-chomping fish

[colinm]

You appear to be very bitter and a lot of what you have claimed and assumed is a long way from reality. However, I'm very sorry that you feel hard done by.

Why, thank you. I appreciate your concern. If you wished to avoid similar situations arising with others, you might consider ensuring that any complaint of "religious vilification," should one hypothetically ever arise, was handled by someone not a co-religionist of the complainant. It seems so obvious.

It's not that I feel hard done by, by any particular moderator's actions. I merely feel that I was mislead into believing that this site represented a community, that the community comprised the users of this site, that the terms and conditions of the site bore some relationship to, and was in any real sense sanctioned by, the users of the site, and finally that interpretations of said terms and conditions would accord with some prevailing norms of said community of users.

Now that I know that the community represented here is not the users, but the owners+administrators+moderators, as they are the *only* people who have any influence on the terms and conditions, I am unlikely to be quite as surprised when a moderator decision (aka banhammer) falls on someone. On the other hand, due to the inherent atomisation of the moderation system on this site, I am unlikely ever to know when that has occurred. Catch 22. Or maybe T&C 25.

It's ok, it's no *sin*. This site is a game, run for profit. It is used by people, some of whom believe they're part of a community, some of whom are actually the community, some of whom know the score, and some of whom are disappeared seemingly at random for no readily understandable reason which will never in any case be articulated.

I now fully understand that It's something like MafiaWars, and I was just playing it wrongly, as if it were a community of people who came together to discuss things, not as a farm full of IP addresses to be herded by admins and sold for a profit.

[colinm]

colinm,
With all due respect I think your response to being moderated was a tad sensitive and to come out with all guns blazing an over reaction from you however I guess that is life and I was being harsh telling you to go away in the strident vernacular I used ,as a wise man once said "it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye " so perhaps we all need a big group hug.
corvus

Corvus, mate, if we were in a real space, and you told me to *&%$#! off in a strident vernacular, I'd probably call you a silly old *&%$#!, and we'd have a laugh. That is precisely the kind of community I thought we were in ... one in which the robust and frank exchange of views was encouraged. I'd be happy to give as good as I got. But no, we're in a place where content has to be "family friendly." It feels like the Brady Bunch Go Car Camping.

As far as "all guns blazing," ... not hardly

[Ent]

Hi Colinm

Did read your blog and this thread but must admit I am still rather in the dark.

I think most moderators would agree that I have saddled my high horse with lance and charged at a few windmills in my time. I also chuckle when other refuse to accept that they have done likewise, but introspection of knowing yourself appears to be elusive as commonsense. I might at the time disagreed with some moderation, but in retrospect nearly all has been of a sensible standard.

The only "real" issue I have with moderation is when is a moderator posting as a forum member or as a moderator? Much prefer once a moderator posts on a thread as a person with an opinion they then become a normal member and if a bun fight breaks out then another moderator steps in. This not because I believe that the moderator may be acting capriciously, but just to keep things beyond reproach. As an accountant our profession has finally decided that audit independence is a good thing even if it rankles the old guard that see it as a slight to their professional standards.

At the end of the day people are not perfect and will bring into their judgement aspects of who they are. A rule mad individual will seek to have a rule for every eventuality while a more free spirited individual will attempt to apply broad principles. I am in the later camp of belief so accept moderation that allows flexibility and dare I say "commonsense" even if it at times can be labeled inconsistent.

As for religious bias. My experience has been the site moderators have done their level best not to make religion an issue. At Rotary rather than a raft of rules they have a simple approach of "playing nicely with others" being a plank, and accepting that politics and region are no go areas. It appears that the vast number of forum members have a similar approach. This does not mean that issues are not "debated" strongly and political leaning can be assumed but even then I have seen posters on one issue been on the left and on the next issue the right of the political divide so it is dangerous to assume which way they actually vote.

As for religion vilification. Religion is faith so challenging it with "facts" is on the road to war. I personally find it rather strange that while in Buddhism the charming depiction of a laughing Buddha would if used to portray the central figures of other religions result in outrage. So my approach is to avoid religion as some will take offense when none was intended. If someone chooses to say they felt most in touch with their belief at a certain place then I am happy that they have, and do not feel the need to challenge them on their belief. There are places that I have felt at peace and like to revisit as there are other places that have elicited the opposite feelings. For the record I could best be described as an agnostic. My meaning of the word for me means someone that neither accepts nor rejects religion.

So Colinm while I can accept your grievance having a basis I do myself personally believe that your assumption might be an overreach on a religious conspiracy. If it was I would have long been barbequed rather than merely singed by moderation.

Cheers

[GPSGuided]

If I were to find a thread pointless, I would not read it.

The above is surely the most useful and constructive comment in this entire thread.
I'm off to re-read Wayno's link about testicle-chomping fish

A further Usenet wording of that idea is ... Don't feed the troll.

[stepbystep]

Hey colinm,

I've been an active member here for well over 4 years and have never bothered reading the terms and conditions(sorry admin/mods), so I've never had an issue as to whether there is some grand conspiracy. I have always been forthright in debates, sometimes I've been off the mark, sometimes I'm bang on. I've been moderated a handful of times. Big deal. I don't care what fantastic ideas others have for their faiths and I'm quite sure they don't care for my ideas. So be it. I find some people on here quite odorous and some people I really quite like, and in regards to the former I'm rather sure the feeling is mutual, much like the real world community I live in.

Perhaps go for a stroll in the bush or have a chat with your neighbour to get some old fashioned community spirit flowing.

Go well!

[colinm]

I might at the time disagreed with some moderation, but in retrospect nearly all has been of a sensible standard.

I'll have to take your word for it, because we can't discuss it on a case-by-case basis.

This not because I believe that the moderator may be acting capriciously, but just to keep things beyond reproach. As an accountant our profession has finally decided that audit independence is a good thing even if it rankles the old guard that see it as a slight to their professional standards.

Yeah, justice must be seen to be done, and all that. OTOH, on this very subject, if you have ears to hear, you might like http://goo.gl/NFV7sb

As for religious bias. My experience has been the site moderators have done their level best not to make religion an issue.

I cannot discuss my specific experience, T&C 25.

As for religion vilification. ... So my approach is to avoid religion as some will take offense when none was intended.

Mine is to ignore people who take offence at most things, because taking offense offends me, and I try to be consistent. Of course one can't ignore a moderator with a ban hammer.

So Colinm while I can accept you grievance having a basis I do myself personally believe that your assumption might be an overreach on a religious conspiracy. If it was I would have long been barbequed rather than merely singed by moderation.

Wait ... my blog post wasn't addressed to this audience, it was addressed to the hoards of rampant atheist activists to whom I may yet still forward it.

You can forget the 'conspiracy' aspect of that post, if I were permitted to post that blog post here, it would be in terms of *privilege* and not conspiracy. Conspiracy is illicit agreement plus act in furtherance. It's far worse than a conspiracy when you don't even have to get an agreement. If you're privileged by the advantage of sharing a religion with someone, you don't have to ask for their agreement on ethical matters regarding a member of the out-group, you got it the moment you mentioned the magic word, be it "Jesus" or "Buddha" or "Xenu."

Let me take an example, if we were scientologists, and I told you SteveX was a "Suppressive Personality," we already know what that means, and no agreement, hence no conspiracy.

That's not the problem, as I see it. The problem is that this place (a) doesn't have a big old sign saying "Christian Values Only, Thank You," or "No Atheists Need Apply," but pretends to be other than it is, (b) doesn't have a single person who's prepared to self-identify as anything other than christian in a position of moderator, yet gives religious complaints credence. Oops, T&C 25 is going to bite me on that para.

[colinm]

I've been an active member here for well over 4 years and have never bothered reading the terms and conditions(sorry admin/mods), so I've never had an issue as to whether there is some grand conspiracy.

Since we're sharing backstories, in another life I spent about 10 years dealing with the complaint handling system in a social community before there were names for it. I can refer you to the PhD thesis written about it (no, really, and yes, sadly )

I have always been forthright in debates, sometimes I've been off the mark, sometimes I'm bang on. I've been moderated a handful of times. Big deal. I don't care what fantastic ideas others have for their faiths and I'm quite sure they don't care for my ideas. So be it. I find some people on here quite odorous and some people I really quite like, and in regards to the former I'm rather sure the feeling is mutual, much like the real world community I live in.

Yah, I can't really discuss what I think about this, having only been moderated once. T&C 25.

Perhaps go for a stroll in the bush or have a chat with your neighbour to get some old fashioned community spirit flowing.

Sure, I'll go commune with nature, in the clear understanding that if a snake bites me, it's not telling itself it's doing it for the good of the community.

[colinm]

Can't edit, by "social community" I mean to type "online social community" ... before there were names for it. In the 90s! Woo. I know a little whereof I speak.

[doogs]

Bugger... I was wrong (again). I thought that the moderators are reptilian shape shifting overlords who have been sent to infiltrate society and stuff.

[colinm]

Bugger... I was wrong (again). I thought that the moderators are reptilian shape shifting overlords who have been sent to infiltrate society and stuff.

Yeah, it's hard to know, isn't it. As far as I can tell, most of them are cannibals who get together in weekly ceremonies to eat the flesh and drink the blood of a human! EEeeeeeeee. The truth is OUT THERE.

[Nuts]

Hmmm, and i read the comments and read the blog. Can't see what I or others said made any difference.. should have said I was a satanist rather than a dontcareist.. pretty sure i'm not being held in a nipple cripple? Oh Lol

Ok, so what's the point here again? Stibb, you understand, please explain??

[colinm]

BTW, and this is just a side comment ... in a well-known youth organisation ... we're told that if someone makes an accusation of illegal acts having been committed, we are *not* to investigate it, but are to record and report the allegation up the line, and to advise and help and support the person report the allegation to the relevant authorities. The reasoning there, I think, is that embarking upon an investigation can make one complicit in the act, maybe even an accomplice, I guess, particularly if one determines that there's no case to answer, but a later official investigation decides there was.

I think it's a sound policy. It evolved, of course, due to chronic mishandling of pedophilia, but it's a good general principle.

I mention this with respect to the application and interpretation of the T&C, which mention behavioural illegality but don't further discuss the response. Accusations of criminal behaviour need to be dealt with off-site, in my opinion.

[GPSGuided]

I think it was the manner by which this T&C issue was raised that has scuttled any productive discussions on the issue. Hostility leads to intractable conflict and revolutions, not sensible resolution.